1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a business, such as siren car agency business, and the Defendant is an individual businessman running a motor vehicle maintenance business in the name of “C” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.

B. On August 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a business partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and the main contents of the instant agreement are as follows.

Article 2 (Contents of Cooperation)

1. The defendant does not request any business entity other than the plaintiff to use sirens necessary for operating the place of business.

2. The plaintiff will supplement one necessary number of employees at the defendant's workplace, and the above salary should be fully responsible for the plaintiff, and should be transferred to the defendant's efforts to perform his/her duties.

3.As at the time of the implementation of the cooperation, four Samsung Vehicles will be purchased through the Defendant and shall be increased thereafter in proportion to the vehicle turning rate.

Article 4 (Mandatory Matters)

1. The plaintiff and the defendant shall exercise due care as a good manager in the performance of partnership affairs.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall faithfully perform the terms of this contract in trust.

Article 6 (Effectuation and Validity of Agreements)

1.The terms of this Convention shall enter into force on the date of conclusion of the agreement and shall continue, in principle, unless they are terminated under the agreement of both companies.

3. The term of the agreement shall be three years following the date of conclusion.

C. After the conclusion of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff purchased Samsung Motor Vehicle 4 (SM7 1, SM52.0 2, and SM3 1) to implement the agreement, and one employee necessary to support the Defendant’s business was stationed in the Defendant’s workplace.

However, around October 23, 2014, when the defendant demanded the defendant to refrain from using D's equipment, which is the plaintiff's employee, within the defendant's workplace, the plaintiff left the defendant's workplace and thereafter, the plaintiff left the employee who had been living in the defendant's workplace and thereafter, the business partnership under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is more effective.